The three-page document prepared by Lara Smith on Ethio-US relationship presents an unfortunate and wrong headed assessment of

Re: U.S. Engagement in Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa

Mulugeta Alemu

11 January 2008

The four-page essay written by Mrs. Lara Smith on US’s foreign policy on Ethiopia and the Horn for CSIS presents an inopportune and wrongheaded assessment. It argues as follows. First, following the 2005 federal and regional parliamentary elections, Ethiopia’s human rights and democratisation effort is seriously severed. Second, the US prioritised cooperation on the war on terrorism at the expense of democratisation and human rights. Third, ‘enemies of EPRDF’ such as Eritrea, UIC, ONLF and OLF do not pose any threat to the strategic interest of the US, and thus the US should reengage with these groups. All these themes are dully familiar and flawed.

Americans’ narrative on the foreign policy pursued by their administration is influenced by two quite prevailing perspectives. There are those who wilfully soldier themselves to throw a scathing attack on president George W. Bush’s foreign policy basically arguing that the government has sacrificed civil liberties and democratisation on the altar of strategic computation. At the other side of the table sit those who argue that the US now is vulnerable in the face of terrorism, and that fighting such an adversary should be given a priority. As far back as we can recall, US’s foreign policy has been dominated either of these idealist or realist outlooks. As the 2008 presidential elections testifies, the battle of the two worldviews is around for a longer haul. When considered within this context, Mrs. Smith’s view is heavily predictable.

The violence following the 2005 election is a staid setback for Ethiopia. Nevertheless, it does not alter the fact that the House of Peoples’ Representatives has now more than a hundred additional opposition members. Several of the regional councils have active members from opposition political parties. The Government is intent on undertaking the 2008 elections on schedule; a plain proof of its genuine commitment to pursue the democratisation path it has embarked upon. The private press continue to thrive despite some setbacks. The Government remains amenable to the views of the citizenry and donors. The author of the paper presents no evidence to substantiate her outrageous claim that EPRDF is heavy-handed in handling pre-election preparations for these elections. Her insinuation that Ethiopia’s path towards democracy is reversed is plainly beyond the pale.

The argument that the US has short-changed human rights and democratisation goals for strategic gains is also wrong. The US remains a prominent supporter of Ethiopia’s democratic and human rights institutions. The US’s assessment of Ethiopia’s human rights record has not been flattering. A cursory look at the annual State Department’s human rights report for the last three years can make this very clear. Many European countries still see in EPRDF government a serious partner on human rights and democratisation; suggesting a considerable policy convergence between Europe and the US. The author makes an unwarranted sense of the US congressional Ethiopia Democracy and Accountability Act 2007. This neglects what is gravely problematic abou this ominous piece of legislation, i.e. the fact that it neither advances the US interest nor the causes of human rights and democratisation in Ethiopia. Democrats’ zeal to thwart Bush’s foreign policy and the pressure of Ethiopia’s extreme fringe of diaspora are perhaps the two most important elements that explain the gratuitous attention the author attaches to the legislation.

The contention that those national and regional ‘enemies’ of EPRDF do not pose any serious threat to the US is also profoundly shaky. Democratic forces within Ethiopia who are opposing EPRDF’s policy through legitimate democratic channels can not be considered enemies of EPRDF. Mrs. Smith’s paper does not claim so. She has, however, identifies Eritrea, UIC, ONLF, and OLF as ‘enemies’ of EPRDF. The paper makes no argument for the overblown conclusion that these groups do not pose any threat to the US. All these groups are bent on undermining Horn of Africa’s biggest hope for stability and democratisation. Political causes espoused by ONLF and OLF do not emanate from political conditions in Ethiopia. Nor can it be said that they present any hope for democratisation and development. Today’s reality in Ethiopia offers great opportunity for accommodation of ethnonationalistic political vision.

It may well be in the best interest of the US to encourage these groups to work within the confines of Ethiopian political dispensation, or start engage the government through peaceful dialogue. I don’t see this being different from the stated position of the government, which is reflected in its readiness to engage these groups if they are ready to abandon armed struggle. But arguing that their terrorism and military strategy does not negatively affect the strategic interest of the US is either uninformed or dishonest.

Eritrea and the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia present a rather clear case of antagonism to what the US stands for. Eritrea’s role in Somalia through its support to extremist groups is a direct threat to Ethiopia and the US. Mrs. Lara Smith, in her VOA radio interview in early 2006, had stated that Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia highlights a convergence of policy between Ethiopia and the US. Her dramatic reversal of stance is quite unexplained and makes for ill-devised and hazy conclusions.